The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced last month that it is close to finalizing a conscience protection rule that would allow people to discriminate in health-care settings under cover of law.

The final rule is at the Office of Management and Budget for review and not available to the public. But under thedraft rule, whichhasbeen made public, health-care providers would be able to refuse to provide treatment, referrals, or assistance with procedures if these activities would violate their stated religious or moral convictions. The deliberately vague language could apply to everyone from receptionists refusing to book appointments to scrub nurses refusing to assist with emergency surgery.

This could be devastating for many marginalized people in the country seeking health care. But it could be especially dangerous for LGBTQ people, who have fought hard to establish legal protections that would guard them against exactly these kinds of denials. When your very body and existence are considered objectionable, seeking health care at the best of times can be dangerous.

“Trans and gender nonconforming people already face really severe discrimination in health-care settings,” said Bridget Schaaff, If/When/How’s reproductive justice federal policy fellow at the National LGBTQ Task Force. Rules like these “are going to make this even harder.”

HHS already finalized two rules that would allow businesses and other entities, like churches, to refuse to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control or abortion services if it violates theirreligiousormoral convictions. Enforcement of these rules is currently on hold due to legal decisions, with judges inPennsylvaniaandCaliforniaruling in favor of challengers. The agency also recentlyproposed another rule that would create a significant administrative burden for insurance companies that include abortion in their policies, effectively incentivizing them to drop this coverage.

Stay in the loop

Never miss the news and analysis you care about.

Optional Member Code

Your Email

Now, this latest regulation would “ensure that persons or entities are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” These updates to existing precedent spread across 25 laws and regulations would substantially extend the reach of “conscience protections.” A doctor might, for example, refuse to give a pregnant patient information about an obstetrician if they suspect the patient might request an “objectionable” treatment like abortion from that obstetrician. The HHS Office of Civil Rights would be responsible for enforcing what critics call a “rightto discriminate.”

The draft rule draws on laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to argue that health-care providers and other entities should not be compelled to participate in activities like performing abortions or sterilizations, providing birth control, participating in physician-assisted suicide, or being “morally complicit” in other health care that violates religious beliefs. This includes activities like requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post signage with comprehensive information about full-spectrum reproductive health services. The extension of conscience protections to moral attitudes as well as religious ones offers even more ammunition for those who want to refuse health care.

Reproductive rights and justice communities are concerned about the clear implications of a rule that could exacerbate an already-documented problem: health-care refusal for people seeking reproductive health services, including abortion and birth control. This issue is particularlyextreme at Catholic hospitals, which areexperiencing explosive growtharound the United States. Abortion in particular has been repeatedly targeted for “conscientious objection,” for example by nurses whorefuse to assistin abortion andsometimes even miscarriage care.

And for members of the LGBTQ community, especially trans people, the stakes of this rule are high. One in four respondents to the2015 Trans Surveyhad experienced insurance denials associated with their gender, while one in three encountered “negative experiences” like being refused treatment. In a2017 Center for American Progress survey, 8 percent of LGBQ people were denied care because of their perceived sexual orientation.

The “conscience protections” outlined in the draft rule could include things like a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for hormones or a surgeon declining to perform a transition-related procedure. But they could technically apply even more widely, and the lines may only become clear in court. As long as a provider could come up with a “moral” reason to decline care, it might be hard for someone to push back, whether it’s a tooth cleaning or breast cancer treatment. A pediatrician couldrefuse to care for the child of lesbian parents. The rule as drafted did not contain guidance about emergency situations, raising concerns that a lethal refusal of care — such as an ambulance crewleaving a trans woman to die — could be justified.

Discrimination already discourages LGBTQ people from seeking health care, which exacerbates theirhealth disparities; LGBTQ people are more likely to experience HIV infection, mental health conditions, and complications related to deferred preventive care. Disability is alsomore prevalent in the trans community than the cis population, including disabilities that may require complex, lifelong care, like mental illnesses.

Section 1557, said Schaaff, is directly at risk from rulemaking like this. “It’s a back door to discriminate,” they say, noting that the Obama administration very deliberately did not include religious exemptions in itsrulemakingon discrimination in health-care settings, while itdidexplicitly include gender identity.

Within months of Donald Trump’s inauguration, the HHS had removed the “gender identity” language from its website and indicated an intent tostop enforcing gender identity discrimination complaints. By tasking its civil rights office with enforcement of this rule, HHS effectively says enshrining the right to refuse care is a civil rights matter — for the person denying the care, not the vulnerable patient.

Even if the rule didn’t allow objectors to deprive patients of access to information about health-care providers whowilltreat them, people limited by geography, insurance coverage, the inability to pay out of pocket, and emergency situations may be unable to find anyone else. This could be particularly dangerous for those with urgent needs, like people seeking abortions in states with narrow legal windows to do so, trans people in mental health crisis, or patients experiencing emergent complications from chronic illnesses or disabilities.

“By giving legal cover for discrimination, the Trump-Pence administration is encouraging providers to deny people health care based on their own homophobia or misogyny, while worsening health care access and forcing some to forgo care altogether,” Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, toldRewire.Newsin a statement.

s.e. smith is a writer, agitator and commentator based in Northern California, with a journalistic focus on social issues, particularly gender, prison reform, disability rights, environmental justice, queerness, class and the intersections thereof, with a special interest in rural subjects.

smith delights in amplifying the voices of those who are often silenced and challenging dominant ideas about justice, equality and liberation. International publication credits include work for the Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian and AlterNet, among many other news outlets and magazines. Keep up with smith on Facebook. Follow smith on Twitter:@realsesmith.

Help Us Keep the Truth Alive!

We'll never demand that you turn off your adblocker or pay to read the news. But in order to bring you honest reporting on critical issues like climate change, state violence, social justice movements, politics and more, we rely on reader donations. Right now, we need your support. It takes just 30 seconds to give — can we count on you to chip in?We'll never demand that you turn off your adblocker or pay to read the news. But in order to bring you honest reporting on critical issues, we rely on reader donations. We need your support: It takes just 30 seconds to give. Can we count on you to help?

Subscribe to Truthout’s daily newsletter and never miss a story. We’ll send you the top news, analysis and commentary from Truthout’s reporters and leading progressive thinkers, as well as the best reprints from other independent news sources.